Other jurisdictions have attempted to introduce these types of policies.

In 2012, the Danish government introduced the world's first ‘fat tax’ by adding about 16 Kroner, or $2.87, per kilogram of saturated fat in each product. They've since repealed the law claiming that the tax led to highers costs and higher unemployment.

Last year, the City of New York tried to implement a ban on the sale of sodas and other sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces at restaurants, concession stands and other eateries.

Closer to home, public schools in many provinces have been successful in banning junk food in cafeterias and vending machines.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, however, argues against fat taxes, referencing their November 2013 study that concludes that they don't improve health outcomes and lead to more cross-border shopping.

They also cite references from their FOI indicating that Manitoba government staffers are of the same mind.

“Currently there is only, at best, weak evidence that junk food taxes would be effective in achieving public health goals of influencing food choices. Such taxes would certainly raise revenue.” – Staff Note (P.31)

“Most studies have considered the impact of tax rates of up to 30%. It has been shown, even with small taxes, that the effect would be regressive – that is, there would be a greater economic impact on lower income consumers.” – Staff Note (P.31)

Certainly, in the short term, it looks as if there's little benefit to health care costs.

But if a fat tax increases government revenues — by 'punishing' individuals who disproportionately use health services — then isn't it a policy worth considering?